Posted on 05/26/2011 11:29:59 AM PDT by topcat54
All of the following material is from Rev. Fred Klett who in turn cites other Reformed sources or authors.
The Westminster Larger Catechism on the Jewish people:
Has God promised anything regarding ethnic Israel? Good people are on all sides of this hotly debated topic. Among Reformed folk there are many points of view. Great men like Puritan John Owen spoke of the revival of the Jewish people and their restoration to the land. Others see the Jewish people as simply one of the peoples of the earth, certainly with a special history. What are the implications of the fact that the Kingdom of God is no longer centered in one geographical location or ethnic group? The meek now inherit the whole earth. Does that mean that the earthly Israel is no longer important? Are the Jewish people no longer of any special concern at all? And what about the Arabs? What is the answer? The Westminster Larger Catechism states:
(Excerpt) Read more at triablogue.blogspot.com ...
What a cliffhanger! Ping to read later & at the original.
Offensive subject line.
Grammatically speaking it reads like the unintentional set up to a slur and classic propaganda diatribes.
The correct phrasing is “Jewish People”, and perhaps “To the Jews”.
Offensive subject line. Grammatically speaking it reads like the unintentional set up to a slur and classic propaganda diatribes.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek....There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek."
-- The Apostle Paul, Romans 1:16, 2:9-10
A cliff notes version for the cliffhanger...
...it’s essentially various perspectives from Christians wrestling with how to hold Jews up as the chosen people, and still resolve the Gospel’s call.
Alex, Thank you for your post, clipping the reference, however it’s probably not the most appropriate in the context of a subject line, because in the modern age, speaking of the Jewish people as objects has an unintended tone.
All of the following material is from Rev. Fred Klett who in turn cites other Reformed sources or authors.The Westminster Larger Catechism on the Jewish people:
Too late for an "Ecumenical. Play nice, y-all" tag. This should be, not entertaining, but enlightening.
Those who know the arguments from Scripture recognize it immediately.
Those who don't know Scripture may be offended but you can't please 'em all.
“Those who know the arguments from Scripture recognize it immediately.”
From Christian scripture. Your flippancy is counter to the articles point, which seems to suggest ways to rationalize acceptance, right? Because, these are arguments concerning a party of people who aren’t versed in the New Testament outside of theological curiousity, nor do they ever plan to be.
Such wording is symptomatic of translation, and linguistic changes. Something to keep in mind and be sensitive of for the future.
Those who are serious about the argument are very familiar with Romans 9-11.
This phrase would be instantly recognizable to such.
If a Jewish person was also familiar with the debate, he/she also would know that the phrase was lifted from the New Testament.
Being denoted as "object" doesn't instantly translate to offensive. "To the christian" is used all the time as is "To the American", "To the businessman", etc. and is not normally received negatively.
“”To the christian” is used all the time as is “To the American””
Neither are comparable.
...and as your audience is slightly wider than Christians or Messianic Christian-Jews, you should be aware that such language is received negatively. I understand this is essentially a debate amongst Christians, and so the idea of offending the very topic of the matter might allude you, and I also understand this isn’t the intent.
Judaism by and large describes the G-ds covenant as a responsibility, and the matter of being a chosen people, not as favoritism but as a burden to be a light unto the world, meeting said responsibilities. With that responsibility has come some dark tests.
“the G-ds”
Yikes. A horrible typo, sorry.
Obviously we’re not discussing Polytheism here.
“the G-ds”
Yikes. A horrible typo, sorry.
Obviously we’re not discussing Polytheism here.
Many of the theologians in the article are supporting national restoration for Israel; as opposed to individual redemption for elect Jews. What gives?
I think they are.
Remember, Paul also says "to the Gentile" in pretty much the same breath.
There is no offense intended in the context of the use of the phrase, either in the 1st century or today.
You said: Judaism by and large describes the G-ds covenant as a responsibility..I agree that is why I wish those faithful to G-d’s covenant would also understand G-d created a Marriage Covenant for man and woman, and that covenant seems to be less important not only with some liberal Christian churches but also in some mainline jewish synagogues....
Been reading some fascinating material about the Ring around the planet Saturn has to do with GOD’s ring to mankind in the Holy Scriptures and marraige...
“Remember, Paul also says “to the Gentile” in pretty much the same breath”
Uh, No. Gentile, Christian...these terms do not currently describe an ethno-religious nation or diaspora.
Mind you, if you ever read a bunch of Judaic scholars debating how to deal with “The Goy”, it would be equally as concerning...and still, it doesn’t call to mind pseudo anthropological studies meant to dehumanize one group during the mid-Century.
“that covenant seems to be less important not only with some liberal Christian churches but also in some mainline jewish synagogues....”
I personally don’t believe that marriage was core to the Covenant .... I’m not sure it’s a sin to be single, for example.
More to your point though... the modern world has dictated how denominations evolved and observe. Some adjustments for the secular world make a lot of sense, but what we have today is this identity crises where assimilation has resulted in some sects straying very far from the original doctrines. There will always be issues and attitudes that differentiate from Chapel to Chapel, don’t you think?
I’d suggest just letting it go. Failing to recognize an abbreviated Biblical cite in a headline and perceiving the intended meaning in a more modern context isn’t the worst mistake one could make.
I think the Marraige Covenant is actually more important than any other covenant, because it is a Covenant between GOD and human beings male and female that was started from day one in the Book of Genesis....
Actually I think the Marriage Covenant that is now being perverted is why the Bible says the last days will be like the Days of Noah, it was the peversion of GOD’s Holy Union and immorality that brought the destruction to Sodom and to Noah’s Days....
The covenant GOD gave to the Jewish People was to bring fourth Monotheism and the law to human kind..
The Marraige Covenant was a sacred covenant between Man, Woman and GOD himself...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.